課題を満たす
求められた点をすべて含め、読み手と目的に合う内容にします。例文は一つの書き方で、唯一の正解ではありません。
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.
B2
客観的な報告書
このレッスンについて
客観的な報告書 · B2. 求められた点をすべて含め、読み手と目的に合う内容にします。例文は一つの書き方で、唯一の正解ではありません。
例文を見る前に自分の文章を書きましょう。課題別の確認項目で見直します。自動で正誤を判定する課題ではありません。
作文は自己確認式です。この版は言語能力の採点やレベル認定を行いません。
4 問
保存するとマイコレクションで見返せます。
Read each task, draft your own text, then compare the model and checklist. Models are not unique answer keys.
まずはポイントを確認
文章を組み立てる
考えを分かりやすい順序に並べます。必要に応じて段落や接続表現を使い、関係のない接続語は足しません。
I give the time first. Then I explain how to get there.
明確さと言葉を確認する
動詞、主語との一致、つづり、句読点を確認します。理解している語を使い、読み手が誤解しそうな箇所を直します。
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.
学習素材
Read each task, draft your own text, then compare the model and checklist. Models are not unique answer keys.
01 / 4P01保存するとマイコレクションで見返せます。
Fictional briefing: observe a library study area on three afternoons. Notes: 18 desks; all occupied twice; six users asked for sockets; quiet-room signs hard to see; groups and silent readers shared the same space.
Write a report of 180–220 words for the library manager. Present the observations, separate evidence from interpretation, identify limitations, and recommend two practical improvements.
学習ルート
01
ステップ 1 · 理解を深める
0/2課題を満たす
求められた点をすべて含め、読み手と目的に合う内容にします。例文は一つの書き方で、唯一の正解ではありません。
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.02
ステップ 2 · 理解を深める
0/1文章を組み立てる
考えを分かりやすい順序に並べます。必要に応じて段落や接続表現を使い、関係のない接続語は足しません。
I give the time first. Then I explain how to get there.03
ステップ 3 · 理解を深める
0/1明確さと言葉を確認する
動詞、主語との一致、つづり、句読点を確認します。理解している語を使い、読み手が誤解しそうな箇所を直します。
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.ライティング
作文は自己確認式です。この版は言語能力の採点やレベル認定を行いません。
保存された文章はまだありません。課題を始めると、下書きがここに表示されます。
学習マップ
B2客観的な報告書
この単元のポイント
課題を満たす
求められた点をすべて含め、読み手と目的に合う内容にします。例文は一つの書き方で、唯一の正解ではありません。
The invitation states what, when and where, then asks for a reply.文章を組み立てる
考えを分かりやすい順序に並べます。必要に応じて段落や接続表現を使い、関係のない接続語は足しません。
I give the time first. Then I explain how to get there.明確さと言葉を確認する
動詞、主語との一致、つづり、句読点を確認します。理解している語を使い、読み手が誤解しそうな箇所を直します。
She works on Monday. We work on Tuesday.問題と解答
解答を開くと、その問題にヒント利用が記録されます。
Fictional briefing: observe a library study area on three afternoons. Notes: 18 desks; all occupied twice; six users asked for sockets; quiet-room signs hard to see; groups and silent readers shared the same space.
Write a report of 180–220 words for the library manager. Present the observations, separate evidence from interpretation, identify limitations, and recommend two practical improvements.
解答と解説を開く
Study Area Review
Purpose
This report summarises observations made in the library study area on three afternoons and suggests practical changes for consideration.
Findings
The area contains eighteen desks. All were occupied during two of the visits, and six users asked staff where they could find a power socket. The signs identifying the quiet room were difficult to notice. Groups discussing projects and people reading silently were using the same open space.
Interpretation and limits
These observations suggest possible pressure on seating and power access, but three afternoon visits cannot show how busy the library is throughout the week. They also do not establish how many visitors would use additional desks or whether existing sockets are always unavailable. The different study activities may create conflicting expectations, although no formal user survey results were supplied.
Recommendations
First, the library should make the quiet-room signs clearer and explain which spaces permit discussion. Second, staff should review socket locations and publish a simple guide before considering new electrical work. A short follow-up record covering different days and times would help the manager decide whether larger changes are justified.
Purpose
This report summarises observations made in the library study area on three afternoons and suggests practical changes for consideration.
Findings
The area contains eighteen desks. All were occupied during two of the visits, and six users asked staff where they could find a power socket. The signs identifying the quiet room were difficult to notice. Groups discussing projects and people reading silently were using the same open space.
Interpretation and limits
These observations suggest possible pressure on seating and power access, but three afternoon visits cannot show how busy the library is throughout the week. They also do not establish how many visitors would use additional desks or whether existing sockets are always unavailable. The different study activities may create conflicting expectations, although no formal user survey results were supplied.
Recommendations
First, the library should make the quiet-room signs clearer and explain which spaces permit discussion. Second, staff should review socket locations and publish a simple guide before considering new electrical work. A short follow-up record covering different days and times would help the manager decide whether larger changes are justified.
これは一つの例文で、唯一の解答ではありません。 自己確認: 読み手は必要な点をすべて見つけられますか：観察、解釈の限界、二つの提案。 構成: 記録された事実、慎重な解釈、限界、提案を見出しで分けています。提案は観察結果ではありません。 “Findings” → “Interpretation and limits”. 表現: “These observations suggest possible pressure on seating and power access, but three afternoon visits cannot show how busy the library is throughout the week.” 慎重な表現で記録が示すことと可能な解釈を分けています。調査、割合、確定した原因を作りません。 別の表現や構成でも課題を満たせます。与えられた事実は守りましょう。これは自己確認で、自動の言語採点ではありません。
Fictional briefing: a college cafe trials reusable cups for one week. Notes: 90 drinks in reusable cups; 14 customers asked about cleaning; return box full twice; staff spent extra time explaining the system; total drinks sold was not recorded.
Write a report of 180–220 words. Summarise the trial, explain what the figures can and cannot show, identify operational issues, and recommend a next step.
解答と解説を開く
Reusable Cup Trial
Overview
The college cafe tested a reusable cup system for one week. This report reviews the available notes and identifies what should be checked before the scheme is extended.
Recorded results
Ninety drinks were served in reusable cups. Fourteen customers asked how the cups were cleaned, and the return box became full on two occasions. Staff also reported spending additional time explaining how customers should return their cups.
What the evidence means
The trial recorded reusable cup use, but the total number of drinks sold was not recorded. It is therefore impossible to calculate the proportion served in reusable cups or compare daily participation rates. Questions about cleaning suggest a need for clearer information, but they do not prove that customers were dissatisfied. The full return box may indicate a practical collection issue that needs checking, rather than a failure of the idea itself.
Recommended next step
A second short trial should record total drinks sold as well as reusable cup use. Clear cleaning information should be displayed, and staff should check the return box at agreed intervals. These modest changes would provide stronger evidence about participation while reducing avoidable demands on staff.
Overview
The college cafe tested a reusable cup system for one week. This report reviews the available notes and identifies what should be checked before the scheme is extended.
Recorded results
Ninety drinks were served in reusable cups. Fourteen customers asked how the cups were cleaned, and the return box became full on two occasions. Staff also reported spending additional time explaining how customers should return their cups.
What the evidence means
The trial recorded reusable cup use, but the total number of drinks sold was not recorded. It is therefore impossible to calculate the proportion served in reusable cups or compare daily participation rates. Questions about cleaning suggest a need for clearer information, but they do not prove that customers were dissatisfied. The full return box may indicate a practical collection issue that needs checking, rather than a failure of the idea itself.
Recommended next step
A second short trial should record total drinks sold as well as reusable cup use. Clear cleaning information should be displayed, and staff should check the return box at agreed intervals. These modest changes would provide stronger evidence about participation while reducing avoidable demands on staff.
これは一つの例文で、唯一の解答ではありません。 自己確認: 読み手は必要な点をすべて見つけられますか：試行結果、データの限界、運用上の問題、次の行動。 構成: 記録された事実、慎重な解釈、限界、提案を見出しで分けています。提案は観察結果ではありません。 “Recorded results” → “What the evidence means”. 表現: “Questions about cleaning suggest a need for clearer information, but they do not prove that customers were dissatisfied.” 慎重な表現で記録が示すことと可能な解釈を分けています。調査、割合、確定した原因を作りません。 別の表現や構成でも課題を満たせます。与えられた事実は守りましょう。これは自己確認で、自動の言語採点ではありません。
Fictional briefing: a museum tests a new audio guide with 12 volunteers. Notes: nine completed the route; three stopped because their phone battery was low; four found one instruction unclear; all testing occurred on a quiet weekday morning.
Write a report of 180–220 words for the museum team. State the results, distinguish device problems from guide problems, discuss the sample limits, and propose improvements.
解答と解説を開く
Audio Guide Test
Purpose and results
This report considers the museum’s trial of a new audio guide with twelve volunteers. Nine completed the route. The remaining three stopped because their phone batteries were low. Four volunteers also identified one instruction that they found unclear.
Problems to distinguish
The incomplete routes should not automatically be treated as failures of the guide content. Low batteries are a device-related barrier, although the museum may still need to help visitors prepare for using their own phones. By contrast, an unclear instruction is a content issue that the guide team can examine directly. The notes do not show whether the same volunteers experienced both problems.
Limitations
All testing took place on a quiet weekday morning. A small volunteer group may not reflect the range of visitors or the conditions of a busy weekend. These results cannot establish how the guide will work for every visitor.
Recommendations
The team should rewrite and retest the unclear instruction. It should also provide an advance reminder about phone batteries and explain any charging options available. A further test at a busier time, involving a wider range of visitors, would help assess whether these changes are sufficient.
Purpose and results
This report considers the museum’s trial of a new audio guide with twelve volunteers. Nine completed the route. The remaining three stopped because their phone batteries were low. Four volunteers also identified one instruction that they found unclear.
Problems to distinguish
The incomplete routes should not automatically be treated as failures of the guide content. Low batteries are a device-related barrier, although the museum may still need to help visitors prepare for using their own phones. By contrast, an unclear instruction is a content issue that the guide team can examine directly. The notes do not show whether the same volunteers experienced both problems.
Limitations
All testing took place on a quiet weekday morning. A small volunteer group may not reflect the range of visitors or the conditions of a busy weekend. These results cannot establish how the guide will work for every visitor.
Recommendations
The team should rewrite and retest the unclear instruction. It should also provide an advance reminder about phone batteries and explain any charging options available. A further test at a busier time, involving a wider range of visitors, would help assess whether these changes are sufficient.
これは一つの例文で、唯一の解答ではありません。 自己確認: 読み手は必要な点をすべて見つけられますか：結果、二種類の問題、標本の限界、改善案。 構成: 記録された事実、慎重な解釈、限界、提案を見出しで分けています。提案は観察結果ではありません。 “Problems to distinguish” → “Limitations”. 表現: “The incomplete routes should not automatically be treated as failures of the guide content.” 慎重な表現で記録が示すことと可能な解釈を分けています。調査、割合、確定した原因を作りません。 別の表現や構成でも課題を満たせます。与えられた事実は守りましょう。これは自己確認で、自動の言語採点ではありません。
Fictional briefing: a shared workplace tests online desk booking for two weeks. Notes: 30 staff used it; seven bookings were cancelled late; three people could not find their booked desk; there is no comparison with the previous system.
Write a report of 180–220 words. Present the facts, identify possible causes without claiming certainty, explain the missing comparison, and recommend practical adjustments.
解答と解説を開く
Desk Booking Pilot
Scope
This report summarises a two-week trial of online desk booking in the shared workplace. Thirty staff members used the system during this period.
Recorded difficulties
Seven bookings were cancelled late, and three people reported that they could not find the desks they had reserved. Late cancellations may have limited the opportunity for other staff to use those desks. Difficulty locating a desk could reflect unclear labels, an unfamiliar layout or confusing instructions, but the available notes do not identify a definite cause.
Limits of the findings
There is no comparable record from the previous system. The trial therefore cannot show whether online booking reduced confusion or improved desk availability overall. It also covers only a short period, during which staff may still have been learning how the system worked.
Suggested adjustments
The workplace should make desk labels easier to match with the booking screen and send a reminder explaining how to cancel promptly. Staff should also have a clear way to report a problem. A further trial should record the reasons for cancellations and compare desk use with an equivalent earlier period, where reliable information is available.
Scope
This report summarises a two-week trial of online desk booking in the shared workplace. Thirty staff members used the system during this period.
Recorded difficulties
Seven bookings were cancelled late, and three people reported that they could not find the desks they had reserved. Late cancellations may have limited the opportunity for other staff to use those desks. Difficulty locating a desk could reflect unclear labels, an unfamiliar layout or confusing instructions, but the available notes do not identify a definite cause.
Limits of the findings
There is no comparable record from the previous system. The trial therefore cannot show whether online booking reduced confusion or improved desk availability overall. It also covers only a short period, during which staff may still have been learning how the system worked.
Suggested adjustments
The workplace should make desk labels easier to match with the booking screen and send a reminder explaining how to cancel promptly. Staff should also have a clear way to report a problem. A further trial should record the reasons for cancellations and compare desk use with an equivalent earlier period, where reliable information is available.
これは一つの例文で、唯一の解答ではありません。 自己確認: 読み手は必要な点をすべて見つけられますか：事実、慎重な原因の推測、比較の不足、改善策。 構成: 記録された事実、慎重な解釈、限界、提案を見出しで分けています。提案は観察結果ではありません。 “Recorded difficulties” → “Limits of the findings”. 表現: “Difficulty locating a desk could reflect unclear labels, an unfamiliar layout or confusing instructions, but the available notes do not identify a definite cause.” 慎重な表現で記録が示すことと可能な解釈を分けています。調査、割合、確定した原因を作りません。 別の表現や構成でも課題を満たせます。与えられた事実は守りましょう。これは自己確認で、自動の言語採点ではありません。